Pages

Sunday, 30 December 2012

Indian protestors sit behind lighted candles during a protest in New Delhi on December 29, 2012. after the death of a gangrape victim from the Indian capital. AFP

he Delhi-based victim of the 16 December gang rape in a moving bus was "shifted to Singapore when it was already clear that she would not survive the next 48 hours," a senior official connected with logistics claimed. He added that "soon after the protests, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit wanted the victim to be transferred to a better hospital than Safdarjung" (most likely Medanta in Gurgaon). According to him, this request by the CM was rejected as "those in the decision-making loop (presumably the Prime Minister and the Home Minister) were worried that secrecy would no longer be maintained were the victim to be transferred from the government-run Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta". According to the official, who is unwilling to reveal his identity, there was considerable disquiet among a section of the medical staff about the late-night decision on 27 December to transfer the battered girl out of the country, in view of the trauma and strain that a such a major shift would entail. His claim is that the decision (to shift the patient to Singapore) was taken because "those at the top felt that public reaction would be less severe, were her death to occur out of the country". A question that is likely never to be satisfactorily answered is whether the cardiac arrest the victim suffered — and which resulted in irreversible brain damage — was exacerbated by the shift, or would have resulted in her death anyway. The Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry of Home Affairs both claim that the decision to shift the victim to Singapore was taken solely "according to the wishes of the doctors attending on her" at Safdarjung Hospital. They portray the move to Singapore as proof that the Manmohan Singh government "left no stone unturned to try and save the life of the girl", and deny that her health situation was "already hopeless" when the decision was taken to move her out of the country.

The official agreed that the hospital in question in the city-state had much better facilities for an organ transplant than Safdarjung Hospital, but pointed out that "the time for such a measure would come only after her overall vital parameters stabilised", and that this could have been done in either Safdarjung Hospital or at Medanta. He claimed that the decision to shift the patient to Singapore was seen by some medical staff as a "desperate move by a government nervous at the reaction to the possible death of the victim in a government hospital" rather than a genuine effort at saving a precious life. "All that the government wants is to somehow manage the perception situation till the public cools down," before going back to business as usual. He adds that "intelligence agencies have recorded that the routine measures announced after the rape, such as the appointment of a commission headed by a retired judge, has done nothing to dampen public anger at the bad policing which is at the heart of the law and order crisis in Delhi". It remains to be seen whether the death of the victim abroad rather than at home will ensure that public anger gets dampened. Given the country's justice system, a legal expert said that "fast-tracking the trial of the six accused will be almost impossible, for they each have a constitutional right to appeal to higher courts, besides the obvious fact that one of only two witnesses to the crime (both victims) is now dead and unable to testify". Others point to the allegedly "slipshod and dilatory way in which crucial evidence was gathered in the case", including not preventing the possible destruction of evidence caused by subsequently cleaning the bus in which the rape and murder took place, as evidence. However, the Delhi Police point out that all six culprits were identified and apprehended within hours, as proof of their performance.

Unless a public hearing takes place, which involve all those who handled the situation after the criminal act was committed, including the policepersons, doctors and others at the crime scene and by the hospital bed of the victim, it may be impossible to know if the Manmohan Singh government is being truthful in its repeated claims that the 23-year-old victim was shifted from Delhi to Singapore not so that her death would take place on foreign soil but solely with a view towards saving her life. Doctors of high reputation and integrity — both from Safdarjung Hospital and Medanta — are involved in the case, and it is unlikely that they would jeopardise their careers and their reputations by revealing anything other than the truth. A full and public enquiry is the only way forward in such a sensitive matter, rather than — as usual — a small group coming to conclusions in seclusion. The question needing to be answered is: Was the victim already beyond hope when the decision was made to shift her to Singapore? Also, if not, what was the advantage of the other country when it came to the immediate question of stabilizing the condition of the patient, when world-class facilities exist within the National Capital Region itself for that very purpose? The official who claims that the victim was shifted to divert responsibility rather than to seek to save her life says that "all those involved in this cynical exercise know the truth, including diplomats involved". However, this view is controverted by those claiming that the government did all that was humanely possible to save a precious and innocent life, reportedly including spending a total of Rs 6 crores on transfer to Singapore and treatment there. An official involved in some of the decisions asked why, "if the family of the girl is satisfied (with what the government has done), why should others point fingers?" Whatever be the reactions of the victim's family, the incident is generating many more questions than answers with each passing day.

espite the reality that the Indian legal system — clone that it is of the British colonial model — has far too many laws already, several of which ought to find no place in a genuine democracy, there is a constant clamour for more law to deal with any situation. Anna Hazare, no doubt harking back to his days as in the military, believes that a single, omniscient "Jan Lokpal" would vacuum away corruption in India. What is more likely is that the friends and relatives of the Jan Lokpal would themselves enter the ranks of the country's billionaires. And now even children not yet out of high school are, when not being hosed down by water cannons and gassed by high-spirited policemen, are demanding ever more laws so as to fight the menace of rape in the National Capital Region, arguably one of the most unsafe locations in the country, except for its tiny contingent of resident VVIPs. If only it were that simple. The country already has a multitude of laws dealing with the problem of rape and assault on women, the problem being that these are seldom enforced in the way in which they ought to be.

And what more can be expected of a force whose operations are still based on legislation passed in 1862 by a British raj just recovering from the events of 1857? Thanks to the widespread defection of formerly loyal sepoys and other officials during that calamitous year, the British colonial authority made the Indian Police Act of 1862 reek with mistrust of the local population and of their own force. Extraordinary powers were given not only to the police vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the country, but to the colonial authority vis-à-vis the police. The colonial authority had the power to transfer, suspend and dismiss policepersons at will, a power that was often exercised over the years to weed out those less than zealous in defending the right of the British to rule India for the benefit of themselves for generations to come. After 1947, it was expected that there would be a re-look at the colonial-era system and its laws. Instead, those who stepped into the shoes (and houses and offices) of the British soon discovered that colonial law and procedure was ideally suited towards their morphing into what many of them secretly wished they were, British colonials. To call India a democracy when the country's laws, procedures and administrative processes are replicas of those which prevailed during the British Raj is a travesty of the truth.

What is needed is to dismantle the huge walls which exist between the way an ordinary citizen lives and the way those holding exalted positions in government do. A junior minister in the government has been preening on television about the immense sacrifice that he has made by actually going on a public bus in Delhi, no doubt accompanied by sundry busybodies from the police force. Apparently, the minister considers it a signal achievement for him to do what millions in Delhi are forced to do each day, which is risk their lives by getting on a public bus. Perhaps Manmohan Singh ought to make travel by bus compulsory for all ministers in his team. Trying to get around by a system steeped in infamy would perhaps concentrate their minds enough to try and improve matters in the field of public transport. Presently, because of a system in which ministers and high officials live and travel in luxury, there is zero incentive for them to set matters right. What is needed is to force them to undergo some of the travail which the billion-plus people do who are victims of their serial misgovernance. This is possible only of the perquisites of high office, such as vehicles and bungalows, are taken away from them. If living in a slum was good enough for Mahatma Gandhi, it ought to be good enough for those who claim to represent his ideals. They need to follow the Mahatma rather than Jawaharlal Nehru, who promptly moved into the commodious residence of the British commander-in-chief once he became the "tribune of the people" on 15 August 1947. Instead, Nehru ought to have moved into lodgings more typical of what is endured by the bulk of his countrypersons.

Until senior officials and ministers endure what the citizen does, they will lack the fire needed to set matters right. The colonial era of zero power cuts, abundant water supplies, huge official residences and fleets of cars and VIP squadron jets, ought to give way to a lifestyle which reflects the pathetically low average income of the people of India, 66 years after independence from the colonial yoke. A change in lifestyle from Nehru to the Mahatma for the country's Native Colonial class is what Anna Hazare and the Aam Aadmi Party need to battle for, not to get a legislation passed which would add one more layer of corruption to an already rotting superstructure of governance.

Friday, 28 December 2012

M D NalapatFriday, December 28, 2012 - Although hosannas are daily sung in his name by boosters of the Nehru family,led by Nobel Prizeman Amartya Sen and including numerous historians and commentators who have benefitted from state largesse in one form or the other, the reality is that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was insistent that the British colonial state should continue seamlessly into the future. He retained the entire system of colonial law andprocedure, as well as the administrative service.

Indeed, rather than subtracting from the powers assumed by the British colonial masters of India, this authority was added on to during the time of Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi,who took over huge tracts of private property in the name of the state controlled by them,besides - in the case of the latter - breaking a solemn covenant that the Government of India had entered into with the Princes in 1947-48,that of respecting their titles and other privileges in exchange for the royal families surrendering sovereignity over their kingdoms. Indira Gandhi had contempt for the people of India, and this extended to the Princes,many of whom she sent to jail. The Maharani of Jaipur, Gayatri Devi, was for instance tossed into a cell together with prostitutes, “to teach her a lesson”, as was the Maharani of Gwalior. Of course,the males in the Gwalior family at least understood the new reality, with the son of the Maharani becoming an enthusiastic supporter of the Nehru dynasty,as is his son,who is now a member of the Manmohan Singh Council of Ministers. The ladies of the Gwalior royal family,however, remained true to the traditions of the Maharani,remaining within the opposition to this date.

In essence,although advertised globally as a democracy,the reality is that India is still a colonial state, where the government enjoys vast powers over the lives of each citizen.So dense is the system of British-era law (and their post-1947 additions) that it is a simple matter to send any citizen to jail. Just as the British colonials used to ensure that there was always a distance between themselves and the native population,today’s Native Colonials do the same.

Take the example of the de facto ruler of India,Sonia Gandhi. Whenever she or her family travels out of the country or into it,special treatment is given that is very different from the discomfort endured by ordinary citizens. When Sonia Gandhi travels by car within Delhi,there are more than a dozen vehicles in the convoy,while traffic gets blocked for miles as a consequence. Naturally,the example of the UPA Chairperson is followed by her minions as well.They each ensure that their lifestyles and their activities get conducted in a manner which indicates their exalted status,complete with flashing red lights and police sirens. The complete separation between Rulers and Ruled in India is of course never mentioned by the Court Historians and Court Boosters of the Nehru family

Although Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao (who was so disliked by Sonia Gandhi that in 2004 she made his coffin wait outside on the pavement rather than allow it to enter the Congress HQ) sought to reduce some of the colonial-era blanket of laws, since 2004,the Manmohan Singh government has brought back the excesses of the Nehru period.Laws and procedures have been tightened so as to ensure that any official can find some excuse to harass any citizen. In several such activities,the police are the accomplices.India’s police still function in accordance with the 1862 Police Act passed by the British. No “democratic” government since 1947 has ever bothered to change this colonial-era system,by which those in uniform are given life and death power over innocent citizens.

The insensitivity of Official India can be gauged from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reaction to the assault on a 23-year old girl by six goons in Delhi two weeks ago. For five days he refused to say anything about the incident.Then, finally, he appeared on national televisionreading from a prepared text with a wooden expression.Among his gems was the boast that he understood the girl’s pain “because I have three daughters”. Those who ran the death camps at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen also had daughters,many of them. Many of those who assault women and girls have daughters themselves. To say,as the Prime Minister and his Home Minister did,that because they have daughters they are better sensitized to crimes against women,is to talk nonsense.

Yet so ingrained is the belief in Official India that the ordinary citizen is an idiot,that such vapid outpourings are common. Ominously, the Ministrt of Information & Broadcasting has begun a policy of seeking to intimidate broadcasters by drawing attention to the many laws and regulations affecting media content in India. Certain individuals are being encouraged to file criminal charges against mediapersons who refuse to sing hosannas to those in power. The whiff of dictatorship is becoming more apparent.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team,guided by Congress Party supremo Sonia Gandhi,would like to shoot the messenger.That is,the media. Rather, they need to introspect on the colonial system which they administer.The answer to the present crisis of governance in India is not more laws but less. Less laws better implemented. The people of India need a system of laws and governance that is democratic rather than colonial. Unfortunately for them,the listless leaders of India are not listening,busy as they are in making money for themselves and their families.http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=189006

Friday, 21 December 2012

M D NalapatFriday, December 21, 2012 - If a prize were to be awarded for the worst-performing minister in India, former Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel would stand a good chance of qualifying. Under his stewardship, the state-owned Air India has become terminally sick, being kept alive only by bigger and bigger infusions of taxpayer cash. It’s debt has reached $10 billion, while morale is low. Delhi airport was handed over to a private company that did not take long to raise — and raise, and raise - charges for airlines and passengers, so that it has become one of the most expensive in the world.

Bangalore airport resembles a crowded shed, while in the rest of India, only Hyderabad airport provides a pleasant experience. When Praful Patel took charge of the Civil Aviation portfolio in 2004, air fares were coming down, thanks mainly to low-cost airlines such as Air Deccan. Soon afterwards, they began to skyrocket, so that these days, it is much more expensive to fly within India than it is to fly within much richer countries. Of course, despite his poor record in safeguarding the interests of the air passenger, Praful Patel has been rewarded with another prize portfolio, that of Industry, where too he is presiding over declines in performance.

However, now that civil aviation is finally rid of the multi-billionaire minister, there is a chance that airline ticket prices may once again begin to fall, rather than constantly rise. This is if Etihad Airlines buys into Kingfisher, the airline which is now in life support in the ICU. The withdrawal of the Kingfisher fleet from domestic operations has been a major factor behind the high prices being charged by the surviving airlines, and its re-entry into the market may be expected to promote competition within the sector. This is, of course, if Etihad chooses Kingfisher Airlines rather than Jet Airways as its partner of choice in India. Etihad is in talks with Jet Airways and Kingfisher to acquire a stake in one of the two, so as to enter the fast-growing air transportation market in India. Although media accounts speak of Jet as the front-runner, aviation sources in Abu Dhabi, London and Bangalore say that on the contrary, Kingfisher may be the better bet for Etihad.

The main reason for this is that the flamboyant promoter of Kingfisher, Vijay Mallya, may be willing to hand over control of his dying airline to the Abu Dhabi carrier, whereas Jet Airways will give only a much smaller stake, about 24%. In India, it is easy to use Foreign Financial Institutions (FIIs) to boost control in domestic companies over and above the limits sanctioned by law, and Etihad can use the FII channel to - in effect - boost its stake in Kingfisher to much more than the 49% it is legally entitled to buy. There is a world of difference between holding a minority stake – and being in the passenger seat - as opposed to having control, and thereby being firmly in the driver’s seat. Another advantage for Etihad, should it decide on taking control of Kingfisher, would be that the Indian carrier has by now lost the bulk of its fleet. Leased aircraft have been re-possessed for non-payment of dues, whaile other aircraft have been pledged to lenders. Given its aggressive modernisation drive, the Abu Dhabi airline is likely to have a substantial fleet of surplus aircraft which can be leased to Kingfisher, thereby earning immediate revenue. The entry of the Etihad aircraft into the Indian skies ought to lower fares, which is the factor which is most important to the traveller, after years of having higher and higher fares and deteriorating service by carriers eager to cut costs by short-changing passengers. Should Etihad buy into Jet Airways, the lease market for its surplus aircraft would be much less. Add to that the fact that 49% of Kingfisher Airlines is probably worth $1,if that. The airline has been run to the ground and by now has a growing negative net worth. Jet Airways, on the other hand, would - justifiably - demand a much higher price for the 24% stake that promoter Naresh Goyal may be willing to cede to Etihad. Over the years, Goyal has developed Jet Airways into an efficient airline. About two years ago, this columnist took its Delhi-London flight, and found the standard of passenger comfort far better than that of European carriers .

Ironically, the effect of the near collapse of Kingfisher Airlines may make it an attractive option. For example, while Jet Airways has about 20,000 employees, Kingfisher by now has much less, because of the fact that much of the staff have resigned in disgust at not having been paid for months at a time. This has made the airline leaner. Should Vijay Mallya succeed in getting Etihad to buy a controlling stake in his airline, he would be freed of responsibility for the nearly $2 billion that the company owes to financial institutions and to others. Also, what stake remains with him can be expected to rise sharply in value, given the fact that Etihad is a well-run airline, despite its fascination with Europe, including a sizeable Euro-expat managerial group eager to ensure that as much benefit as possible flow to their financially stricken continent from the airline. However, high reliance on European brainpower is a trait which Etihad shares with several GCC entities, including Al Jazeera. Coming to the luxury brands of Europe, these have two huge pools of customers eager to pay absurdly high prices simply because of a label, and these are in the GCC and in China, where too European labels enjoy a huge premium to this day. Those banks which trusted Vijay Mallya and handed over huge loans to Kingfisher are going to be the only losers in such a deal. The chances are that more than half the loan will need to be written off, if a viable White Knight is to come forward. Only the management of Etihad can decide as to whether Jet Airways or Kingfisher is the better buy. However, for the air traveller in India, the re-entry of Kingfisher into the market ought to result in a lowering of fares. In these inflationary times, any relief is welcome!http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=187914

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Jacintha Saldanha’s husband, Benedict Barboza (c) along with son Junal, 16, and daughter Lisha, 14, at Westminster Cathedral in London for a memorial service for Saldanha on Saturday. AP/PTI

here has been no flow of information relating to her death." This from Naveen Saldanha, the brother of Jacintha, who was found dead soon after an Australian radio station broadcast details of a prank call involving the British royal family. We have yet to know what was in Jacintha's suicide note, or the reaction within the hospital administration to her inadvertently putting through a call by two radio jockeys pretending to be Queen Elizabeth and her son Charles. Clearly, Ms Saldanha had not been among those familiar with the British Queen's voice, else she would have instantly discerned that the impostor had a far lower decibel level than Her Majesty. Apparently, Ms Saldanha was not the only staff on duty at the hospital that night to be taken in by two pranksters, whose giggles were only clumsily muffled during the conversation with the two nurses.

The real Prince Charles had the proper take on the incident, making light of the whole matter when asked about it by the media. But what about the Duchess of Cambridge? While more than a few aver that Kate remained "her own sweet self" even after being informed of the prank, others say that the young mother-to-be was (not surprisingly) furious at the way in which she had become — albeit indirectly — a figure of fun. To have details of one's own retching and sleep habits get broadcast over the airwaves is not the most pleasant of occasions, hence it would be understandable were Kate to have got into a fury about one nurse's error in putting through the prank call and in the other giving details of her condition. Say this for the Australian radio jockeys though, they immediately went on air with the details, rather than seek to auction their scoop to the highest bidder.

There has been complete silence on Kate's reaction to the episode, barring an anodyne statement from her and Prince William referring to the medical and nursing staff of the hospital as a whole. As for the hospital, it would have the world believe that its administrators took the same healthily humorous attitude towards the prank as did Prince Charles, an individual who has spent a lifetime being seen as less than what he is. No mention has been made of any reprimand or show of temper, no word on whether the nurse from Shirva in Karnataka's Udipi district was brought before any of the hospital administrators and given a scolding. Again, had this happened, it would have been understandable. The hospital in question suffered a huge embarrassment, although the fault (if any) of the two nurses involved was minuscule. Once both believed they were indeed speaking to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, it followed that they would be deferential and eager to reply to any queries the "royal pair" made to them. If we are to believe the hospital, they reacted not at all — or perhaps with simply an amused smile — to the prank and to the nurses.

Of course, judging by the conversation of the two radio jockeys, it seems clear that the nursing staff in the hospital in question do not take a very exalted view of the Queen's speech. The language used during the telephone call revealed a complete lack of breeding and manners, clearly a tad below what could be expected from the inhabitants of Buck House. While this columnist is no royalist, he is among those who has a very high level of respect for Queen Elizabeth, as well as for Prince Charles. Both have demonstrated a calm maturity that does credit to their race and to its traditions.

However, the total absence of information of what actually took place between the time the prank call was made and Jacintha Saldanha took her own life is very un-British. Clearly, the Leveson Report seems to have converted the lions of the British media into mice. Once Rupert Murdoch ran away from the battlefield and closed down a publication whose editors were only doing what was expected of them, it became clear that the days when the press in the UK was untamed may be over. Which is perhapss why there are about as many details from London of the Jacinta Saldanha suicide as there would be from Pyongyang.

Saturday, 15 December 2012

M D NalapatFriday, December 14, 2012 - From the beginning three centuries ago of the faith, Wahabbism has been nurtured by European powers and their offshoots across the Atlantic. The reason is simple. The Wahabbi worldview and its intellectual component render an individual unable to compete with those having a western mindset. Wherever Wahabbism has established its dominance, technology has shrivelled and the affected region has been made into a desert where schooling becomes such as to render an individual unable to compete with peers across the globe.

It is no accident that only societies which are moderate are those which make rapid progress in science and the arts, while fanatic societies of the form seen under the Wahabbis remain backward. Recognizing the corrosive effect of Wahabbism on young minds, and the fact that this will render them unable to compete in any productive sphere, it is not a surprise that the powers which together have banded together in the form of NATO support Wahabbism abroad while dealing with it harshly in their own countries. Throughout the Middle East, the NATO powers are friendliest with those who have a form of social and political organisation which would be seen as toxic within the NATO bloc. The “Arab Spring” has been seen as an opportunity to complete the George W Bushproject of re-ordering the Middle East so as to eliminate all regimes which are less than fully respectful of NATO concerns. Such a transformation is being sought in alliance with the Wahabbis, including those who call themselves by another name, but who in fact have a chemistry that is congruent with Wahabbism.

In Turkey, the Erdogan administration has succeeded in presenting itself as a modern, moderate force even while imposing through stealth a policy of what may be desribed as “creeping Wahabbism” on the country. In Egypt, Mohammad Morsi sought to speed the process up, thereby revealing his true intentions in a way that Erdogan has managed to avoid. The result has been abacklash within the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population, which is moderate. NATO powers peddle a myth, although not openly. This is that Muslims by nature are fanatic, and are the same as the Wahabbis. The reality is that Islam is a moderate faith, which is only to be expected from followers of the Word of God, which stresses Mercy, Beneficience and Compassion again and again and again.

The difficulty facing the NATO powers is that they already face a huge competitive challenge from South Korea, Japan and China. Should India be enabled to challenge them in their markets as well, followed by the versatile and talented people in Muslim-majority countries, then the era of the dominance of Europe and its overseas offshoots would truly be over. In the case of India, they have succeeded in infiltrating into the decision-making mechanism so comprehensively that government policies in India have become the biggest barrier to growth. In addition, whenever a major project gets started or is on the cusp of going online, numerous Public Interest Litigations and public agitations get started, with the effect of strangling such development. The huge Tata Nano plant in West Bengal, which would have generated a total of 130,000 new jobs in that state, became the victim of such tactics. Recently, just when it was about to go operational, a slew of NGOs with obvious foreign participation launched an agitation which

has delayed the commissioning of a nuclear power plant that would have greatly reduced the power deficit in Tamil Nadu state. A hidden hand is working efficiently in India to make the country and its business class unable to mount a serious effort at competition with manufacturers based in NATO member-states. In countries with a Muslim majority, the secret weapon is Wahabbism. By ensuring that this strand of theology becomes dominant, the effect is to kill innovation and enterprise incountries with a young and agile population.

Although the US has made a cosmetic gesture, that of declaring the Al Nusra front in Syria a terrorist organisation, the Obama administration has made zero effort at ensuring that the flood of weapons and money to this organisation stop. The reality is that the so-called “Free Syrian Government” recognized by the NATO powers has no control whatsover over the battlefield in Syria. The mainly Wahabbi fighters have contempt for the Syrian expatriates who congregate in Paris (which has been chosen as the Lead Power in Syria by NATO because it was that country’s colonial master and now seeks to resume the role of overlord, the way Italy has in alliance with itspartners in Libya). However,they profess to respect them, because this is the only way in which they can get the cash and weapons needed to impose Wahabbi rule in Syria.

The British Foreign Secretary and others who claim that they are expecting these fighters to respect civilian lives are lying and they know it. Daily, Alawite and Christian women are abducted by these fighters and forced into prostitution. Neither BBC nor CNN is reporting on the way in which Syrian women are now being trafficked, because of the NATO-Wahabbi alliance and its war on the Bashar Assad regime. Such coverage would expose the true face behind the Syrian intervention, which is to ensure that Wahabbism establish itself in Damascus, so that young Syrians would get intellectually handicapped from ever competing with peers from within the NATO bloc. The name of the game is the elimination of future competition, so that a second front does not get created in the global marketplace for the NATO powers at a time when they are losing the battle against East Asia. In this game, India is already being hobbled, as mentioned, by ensuring skewed policies that hurt domestic businesses and give undue advantage to NATO-bloc companies.http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=186796

M D Nalapat's Latest Book

Click on image to buy

Search this blog

Share this blog

Follow by Email

About Prof. MD Nalapat

Prof. Madhav Das Nalapat (aka MD Nalapat or Monu Nalapat), holds the UNESCO Peace Chair and is Director of the Department of Geopolitics at Manipal University, India. The former Coordinating Editor of the Times of India, he writes extensively on security, policy and international affairs. Prof. Nalapat has no formal role in government, although he is said to influence policy at the highest levels. @MDNalapat

MD Nalapat's anthology 'Indutva' (1999)

In 1999, Har-Anand published Indutva an anthology of MD Nalapat's 1990s columns from the Times of India. The individual columns are posted here, in 1998 and 1999 of the blog archive, though the exact dates of publication are uncertain.